Rumraket wrote:*snip because pre-coffee and have no patience or dexterity to obey the 2 quotes embed rule*

I am going to have to reply to this later when I've got more time to look up sources (older papers are always harder to find), but one thing I will note quickly is that I think you've slightly misinterpreted what I wrote. I never suggested that all non-coding DNA was junk-DNA, but rather that all junk DNA was non-coding (for proteins) DNA. It may only be a small difference, but just for clarity.

I read a book on this history of it a couple of years back, so I am pretty sure I can find more sources which contradict this notion:

it is used (and always was used) to refer to DNA that doesn't have a biological function.

Even Comings (1972) that I already cited hypothesizes some functions for non-coding (which I will show he uses interchangeably with the term junk DNA later).

For most of the 50 years since Ohno’s article, many of us accepted that most of our genome is “junk”, by which we would loosely have meant DNA that is neither protein-coding nor involved in regulating the expression of DNA that is. Junk was not “informational” in the sense that molecular biologists conceived that term. Such a reading was part and parcel of an understanding of the role of DNA in heredity and evolution—as the “blueprint” for cells and organisms—popular through much of the last century.

Although the term “junk DNA” was already in use as early as the 1960s [10]–[12], the term's origin is usually attributed to Susumu Ohno [13]. As Ohno pointed out, gene duplication can alleviate the constraint imposed by natural selection on changes to important gene regions by allowing one copy to maintain the original function as the other undergoes mutation. Rarely, these mutations will turn out to be beneficial, and a new gene may arise (“neofunctionalization”) [14]. Most of the time, however, one copy sustains a mutation that eliminates its ability to encode a functional protein, turning it into a pseudogene. These sequences are what Ohno initially referred to as “junk” [13], although the term was quickly extended to include many types of noncoding DNA [15]. Today, “junk DNA” is often used in the broad sense of referring to any DNA sequence that does not play a functional role in development, physiology, or some other organism-level capacity. This broader sense of the term is at the centre of most current debate about the quantity—or even the existence—of “junk DNA” in the genomes of humans and other organisms.

It has now become something of a cliché to begin both media stories and journal articles with the simplistic claim that most or all noncoding DNA was “long dismissed as useless junk.” The implication, of course, is that current research is revealing function in much of the supposed junk that was unwisely ignored as biologically uninteresting by past investigators. Yet, it is simply not true that potential functions for noncoding DNA were ignored until recently. In fact, various early commenters considered the notion that large swaths of the genome were nonfunctional to be “repugnant” [10], [16], and possible functions were discussed each time a new type of nonprotein-coding sequence was identified (including pseudogenes, transposable elements, satellite DNA, and introns; for a compilation of relevant literature, see [17]).

Importantly, the concept of junk DNA was not based on ignorance about genomes. On the contrary, the term reflected known details about genome size variability, the mechanism of gene duplication and mutational degradation, and population genetics theory. Moreover, each of these observations and theoretical considerations remains valid. In this review, we examine several lines of evidence—both empirical and conceptual—that support the notion that a substantial percentage of the DNA in many eukaryotic genomes lacks an organism-level function and that the junk DNA concept remains viable post-ENCODE.

Also for clarity, as our Creationist friends will never understand the nature of disagreement between people because they'll instantly see it through their ideological lenses... Rumraket and I are not disagreeing about the science, but rather the history. Rumraket's knowledge of Genetics is greatly superior to my own, and if this was purely an issue about genetics, I'd defer to him (mostly by asking questions) because his knowledge has been shown many times to be trustworthy. However, in this instance, the topic really is about the history of scientific thought on a particular topic, and I believe he is in error in that regard.

thenexttodie wrote:Fluctuations in the Earths granite crust due to water escaping at high speeds from underneath the crust during the flood, caused enough voltage to produce the radioactive elements we find in the ground today.

What the fuck am I reading here? Radioactive isotopes aren't created by "voltage".

I think at least part of the problem is that creationists generally believe in whats called in my country "crevolution" (strawman version of evolution). It is this outdated evolutionary ladder type of thinking that everything has to evolve better or otherwise its degenerating. They ignore the selective pressure. For example fishes found in dark cave have no eyes, but it isn't degeneration, they are just adapted to their enviroment, eyes have no use in that enviroment.

"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield, and those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced, but one is less unwise."

thenexttodie wrote:Fluctuations in the Earths granite crust due to water escaping at high speeds from underneath the crust during the flood, caused enough voltage to produce the radioactive elements we find in the ground today.

What the fuck am I reading here? Radioactive isotopes aren't created by "voltage".

If enough current was produced it could have caused the needed amount of heat for fussion to occur. Sort of like a zeta pinch thing.

“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy

If enough current was produced it could have caused the needed amount of heat for fussion to occur. Sort of like a zeta pinch thing.

And it would have completely vaporized the rocks down to it's naked elemental form, stripped all the atoms of their electrons, annihilated the water molecules and stripped those atoms too of their electrons, and left the Earth's crust and atmosphere an incandescent plasma. It'd be like the surface of the sun. Your idea is absolutely fatuous.

You can't shoot water at rock so hard that it creates so much voltage that the heat results in nuclear fusion of particular specific isotopes you need in a particular distribution of abundance just so you can "account" for the existence of radioactive elements in the very rocks that would be completely annihilated by the process you invoke.

Good for you that you believe the made-up shit you believe that nobody has done any work to show could ever possibly work.

What experiments have been done where they created heat from "voltage" by blowing water really hard at granite until it mysteriously happened to create a particular distribution of isotopes from nuclear fusion? Have anyone even attempted a theoretical calculation?

Or is it enough for you to believe it's a great idea simply by someone writing the words in an effort to try to argue for young Earth creationism? Is that where we at, someone merely has to sort of suggest some idea, and if it is done in an effort to support young Earth creationism, you believe it?

Rumraket wrote:Or is it enough for you to believe it's a great idea simply by someone writing the words in an effort to try to argue for young Earth creationism? Is that where we at, someone merely has to sort of suggest some idea, and if it is done in an effort to support young Earth creationism, you believe it?

Yeah. That is all creationism (and science denial in general) has ever needed. They do not care if the argument works or has already been debunked. They are just happy to have one to put forward.

Bango Skank wrote:All(?) creationists advocate so called "Degeneration theory", but i was wondering what scriptural support for that there is actually. Here is the three common claims that creationists use to support it:

Claim: Degeneration is a result of fall of the man.My rebuttal: The fall had to do with knowledge of good and evil, nothing about fysical change.

Claim: People used to live hundreds of years, but because of the degeneration this is no longer the case.My rebuttal: God capped human life to be max of 120 years after the flood (which is broken btw) like it says in Genesis 6:3. So this is not a result of degeneration but a change that God made.

Claim: People and animals used to be vegetarians, but because of the fall and result of degeneration they began consumption of animal flesh.My rebuttal: God said after the flood that humans can now eat flesh of the animals (Genesis 9:3). So this again is not a result of fall & degeneration, but a change that God made.

Also, there was one quote from Paul in NT which is used to support degeneration theory, but sadly i cannot remember it, but i remember it to be a bit vague.

On side note i found it curious that creationists speak of intelligent design and how perfectly thing X or Y is designed, but in same breath they say everything is faulty, limited and degenerating. In all they should welcome things like junk dna, but curiously they want to point out it's not junk. Why don't they use that as a evidence how laughable broken the whole system is?

As far as I know there is not a direct verse in the bible that supports “degradation” one needs to do some “creative interpretation”

But the argument is based on the fact that most mutations are “slightly deleterious” this means that even though the effect is negative, the effect is very small and invisible for natural selection. Consider for example a mutation that would make your eyes 1% less resistant to sun light, this mutation would be negative, but it is not going to kill you, nor is it going to reduce your chances of finding a wife (hence natural selection will not remove it)

However even though a single mutation won’t affect the organism in any meaningful way these mutations since they are invisible for natural selection would tend to accumulate. (This is what it means by degradation)

As an analogy take for example a book, in most of the cases a spelling mistake is negative, but not so negative (analogous to slightly deleterious) this means that one can steel read and understand a text even if it has a spelling mistake, however if you keep adding spelling mistakes over and over again there will be a point where the text will become unreadable and impossible to understand.

The implication is that if slightly deleterious mutations have been accumulating in our genome for billions of years we would be dead by now. If the earth is young and humans have been here for 6,000 years we would have some degradation, but we would still be pretty ok.

Coming up next:

Atheist from this forum focusing on minor details, insulting, and/or refuting strawman arguments rather than trying to provide a solution to this problem.

I am not a YEC but I do grant this as a valid argument for young earth creationism.

leroy wrote:But the argument is based on the fact that most mutations are “slightly deleterious” this means that even though the effect is negative, the effect is very small and invisible for natural selection. Consider for example a mutation that would make your eyes 1% less resistant to sun light, this mutation would be negative, but it is not going to kill you, nor is it going to reduce your chances of finding a wife (hence natural selection will not remove it)

However even though a single mutation won’t affect the organism in any meaningful way these mutations since they are invisible for natural selection would tend to accumulate. (This is what it means by degradation)

As an analogy take for example a book, in most of the cases a spelling mistake is negative, but not so negative (analogous to slightly deleterious) this means that one can steel read and understand a text even if it has a spelling mistake, however if you keep adding spelling mistakes over and over again there will be a point where the text will become unreadable and impossible to understand.

The implication is that if slightly deleterious mutations have been accumulating in our genome for billions of years we would be dead by now. If the earth is young and humans have been here for 6,000 years we would have some degradation, but we would still be pretty ok.

What i have read these slightly deleterious mutations gets fixed by genetic drift and positive mutations. Slightly deleterious mutations can only be real problem in small populations.

"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield, and those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced, but one is less unwise."

I am confused about why some of you are impying I am using the term voltage, incorrectly. Electrodes have been used to produce radioactive isotopes. Electrodes imply voltage, right?

This makes me wonder how many other things you are wrong about.

As I explained in my earlier post which it appears you glossed over, electrical current is not measured in Volts, but in Amps.

Voltage is the measurement of electrical potential, not electrical current. Voltage on it's own will not produce heat it's the electrical current or Amps which do that.

Finally as i said in my previous post that you used to wrong unit for measurement is irrelivent to me, the real problem with your theory is that the amount of heat required would boil the oceans and kill every creature on the planet regardless if they were on a boat or not.

Contrary to popular belief, full-immersion holographic sex will not destroy society.

IBSpify wrote:Alright then answer my question from earlier, how much heat would be required to create the amount of radioactive material

A lot.

That's not a unit of measurement, that's a subjective evaluation.

So please calculate how much heat would be required. Also please provide links to experiments where large amounts of electrical current was generated by shooting water on rock so thermonuclear fusion took place.

thenexttodie wrote:Also it seems to me that the Earth's crust would not have contained radioactive elements before the flood.

Sparhafoc wrote: Aha!

So the Garden of Eden existed prior to the formation of Earth 4.4 billion years ago.

Well, I guess you can proudly say you're an Old Earth Creationist.

No. I am a young earth creationist.

Fluctuations in the Earths granite crust due to water escaping at high speeds from underneath the crust during the flood, caused enough voltage to produce the radioactive elements we find in the ground today. Granite is made up of much quartz. Quartz will produce voltage when force is applied to it.

Outrageous balderdash. The effects you cite could not produce enough energy to produce any nuclear effects whatsoever.

You also neglect to account for radioactivity at great depth in the earth that among other things drives plate tectonics.